Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

[Frodo]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140223215134.htm

"In order to fly, hulking meat-eating dinosaurs had to shrink in size and grow much longer arms to support their feathered wings."

The desire to fly will give you the ability to shrink and develop the anatomy to fly? LOL!

"Up to now you could only have guessed roughly where the major evolutionary transitions occurred," said Dr Gavin Thomas of the University of Sheffield, "but the new methods pinpoint the size changes. The small size of birds and their long wings originated long before birds themselves did."

Can someone explain to me what the underlined statement is supposed to mean? I thought it meant the anatomy of birds orginated before birds did. Does it make sense?

"The origin of birds used to be seen as a rapid transition." said Mark Puttick, "but now we know that the key characteristics we associate with them arose much earlier."

So rapid evolution occurred to turn nonbird to bird? LOL! Does it even make sense? I think it hurts the brain less to just believe what the Bible says, that God made the birds on Day 5. :p

 

[Agoraphobic]

Why should they change? The may have developed resistance to certain recent insecticides, who knows? What do you expect? Grow vocal chords and able to use cellphones now?

53 million years, the Earth wasn't made yet, according to the Bible!

Cheers!

These suckers have not changed in... timeline makes more sense.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

 

[Agoraphobic]

I see it to suggest that evolution takes a long long time. Flight likely came about from animals that glided from trees first before developing the ability of true flight. The animals were therefore arboreal in habits to avoid predators on the ground but still have to get down to the floor to eat. Using the Bible as a guide, I'd say that the difference between Day 4 and Day 5 could be 4 or 5 hundred million years!

Cheers!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140223215134.htm

"In order to fly, hulking meat-eating dinosaurs had to shrink in size and grow much longer arms to support their feathered wings."

The desire to fly will give you the ability to shrink and develop the anatomy to fly? LOL!

"Up to now you could only have guessed roughly where the major evolutionary transitions occurred," said Dr Gavin Thomas of the University of Sheffield, "but the new methods pinpoint the size changes. The small size of birds and their long wings originated long before birds themselves did."

Can someone explain to me what the underlined statement is supposed to mean? I thought it meant the anatomy of birds orginated before birds did. Does it make sense?

"The origin of birds used to be seen as a rapid transition." said Mark Puttick, "but now we know that the key characteristics we associate with them arose much earlier."

So rapid evolution occurred to turn nonbird to bird? LOL! Does it even make sense? I think it hurts the brain less to just believe what the Bible says, that God made the birds on Day 5. :p

 

[Frodo]

Why should they change? The may have developed resistance to certain recent insecticides, who knows? What do you expect? Grow vocal chords and able to use cellphones now?

53 million years, the Earth wasn't made yet, according to the Bible!

Cheers!

LOL! I think you missed the point.

Tell me, why did the first nonliving thing change to living cell and what acted on it? According to evolution of course which you fully subscribe...but you are not an evolutionist.

 

[Frodo]

I see it to suggest that evolution takes a long long time. Flight likely came about from animals that glided from trees first before developing the ability of true flight. The animals were therefore arboreal in habits to avoid predators on the ground but still have to get down to the floor to eat. Using the Bible as a guide, I'd say that the difference between Day 4 and Day 5 could be 4 or 5 hundred million years!

Cheers!

Cool Story Bro!

BTW, if you are truly using the Bible as a guide, you would reject evolution.

 

[Agoraphobic]

To my simple thoughts, if the conditions are right, and the right things occur, the cell will form a simple living organism like a protozoa or amoeba, single-celled.

I don't know if this is related or to this case or not? When there is lightning, thunder at night, mushrooms seem to be more abundant the following day. I've notice this happened in my backyard. Living things also adapt to changes in the environment to try and survive, so the mozzie that remained unchanged for 50 million years was already suited to live in the environment it was living in and didn't have to improve its capacity to avoid predators, or obtain nourishment the way it already did. In the case of humans, it is theorized that we descended from the trees and started to walk more in the savannah type grasslands of East Africa which gave rise to bipedalism, we also started to eat more animal based diet which contained fats which helped our brains grow. These caused us to develop apart from our tree dwelling ape cousins. This explanation to me is more acceptable than the one we've been told by the chapter of Genesis. I don't claim to be evolutionist, but say that it provides the explanation of how we came to be more sensibly.

Cheers!

LOL! I think you missed the point.

Tell me, why did the first nonliving thing change to living cell and what acted on it? According to evolution of course which you fully subscribe...but you are not an evolutionist.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, I do not reject both evolution nor bible, I see them as just different views. Evolution is current with our civilization's ideas, concepts, whilst bible is a religious guidebook. It's stories are used to explain to us things we have questions for in the way that was acceptable to our societies - at the time they were written. Say, during the 12th or 13th century, we were not aware of microscopic organism like germs and bacteria, or neurology, to explain sickness, epilepsy and these things, we say the person is possess by some evil spirit - that was how we perceived things then! By this same explanation, gremlins, trolls, and fairies have been replaced by little green men from outer space, because of popular literature (or science fiction) now.

Cheers!

Cool Story Bro!

BTW, if you are truly using the Bible as a guide, you would reject evolution.

 

[Frodo]

To my simple thoughts, if the conditions are right, and the right things occur, the cell will form a simple living organism like a protozoa or amoeba, single-celled.

I don't know if this is related or to this case or not? When there is lightning, thunder at night, mushrooms seem to be more abundant the following day. I've notice this happened in my backyard. Living things also adapt to changes in the environment to try and survive, so the mozzie that remained unchanged for 50 million years was already suited to live in the environment it was living in and didn't have to improve its capacity to avoid predators, or obtain nourishment the way it already did. In the case of humans, it is theorized that we descended from the trees and started to walk more in the savannah type grasslands of East Africa which gave rise to bipedalism, we also started to eat more animal based diet which contained fats which helped our brains grow. These caused us to develop apart from our tree dwelling ape cousins. This explanation to me is more acceptable than the one we've been told by the chapter of Genesis. I don't claim to be evolutionist, but say that it provides the explanation of how we came to be more sensibly.

Cheers!

Ah...if conditions are tight life will just "evolve" from nonliving matter? Well, then it shouldn't be that difficult to reverse engineer this process in the lab, right? Or we should be able to see it happening spontaneously every now and then...oh wait...it was a once only not repeatable event in evolution's history. Duh.....

Ah..so your "ad hoc" explanation was that the mozzie didn't need to evolve. Evolutiion explains why it did not evolve. But then the mozzie must have evolved from a "non-mozzie" ya? Why then did it evolve till 53 millions years ago and then evolution for it come to a stand still ever since? C'mon, surely you can see the failed nature of such an explanation! Your explanation has no explanatory power, because if it changed it is evolution at work, if it did not change it is also evolution at work. To be considered as scientific your explanation has to be capable of being falsified. Can it? From the looks of it, it's seems impervious to being falsified.

 

[Frodo]

Fren, I do not reject both evolution nor bible, I see them as just different views. Evolution is current with our civilization's ideas, concepts, whilst bible is a religious guidebook. It's stories are used to explain to us things we have questions for in the way that was acceptable to our societies - at the time they were written. Say, during the 12th or 13th century, we were not aware of microscopic organism like germs and bacteria, or neurology, to explain sickness, epilepsy and these things, we say the person is possess by some evil spirit - that was how we perceived things then! By this same explanation, gremlins, trolls, and fairies have been replaced by little green men from outer space, because of popular literature (or science fiction) now.

Cheers!

Hmm...you do not reject evolution or the Bible....? Ah, I think you meant to say you ACCEPT both evolution and the Bible, as in accepting evolution as true and accepting the Bible as mere fictional story for gullible people like me and many others around the world for the past 2000 years, right?

To my mind the amount of misinformation you have about the Bible is really huge! The Bible was not written in the 12th or 13th century. And people in the past or not that daft to can't tell the difference between sickness by natural causes and sickness by supernatural causes. They had doctors then, and Luke was a doctor. It is chronological snobbery to think that we are clever but people in the past are dumwits who can't discern true causes, and most if not all, atheists are guilty of that. Don't forget, what you now know will one day also be knowledge of the past.

 

[Agoraphobic]

One can simulate all the conditions in the lab except - time. I don't think we're able to compress millions of years into a few hours in the lab yet. If you can do that, you just might be able to create life.

Perhaps you might care to answer - why should it evolve further? Has its environment changed? Has its nutrient source become scarce?

Let's take a look at it from Creationist's angle. How did God make these things? By his word? That's really simple isn't it? Let there be light! And there was light. Let there be life! And there was life. Nobody taught him. He is the Alpha, the Omega. No need to ask how, why. You may be able to accept this, but many others will not be satisfied with this.

Cheers!

Ah...if conditions are tight life will just "evolve" from nonliving matter? Well, then it shouldn't be that difficult to reverse engineer this process in the lab, right? Or we should be able to see it happening spontaneously every now and then...oh wait...it was a once only not repeatable event in evolution's history. Duh.....

Ah..so your "ad hoc" explanation was that the mozzie didn't need to evolve. Evolutiion explains why it did not evolve. But then the mozzie must have evolved from a "non-mozzie" ya? Why then did it evolve till 53 millions years ago and then evolution for it come to a stand still ever since? C'mon, surely you can see the failed nature of such an explanation! Your explanation has no explanatory power, because if it changed it is evolution at work, if it did not change it is also evolution at work. To be considered as scientific your explanation has to be capable of being falsified. Can it? From the looks of it, it's seems impervious to being falsified.

 

[Agoraphobic]

You are right in this. The bible had other purposes too. It is the official text for Christianity, which was used by politicians to rule over their societies. The church mandated the kings, who were given the right by divine authority to collect taxes. So the bible was taken as truth, and that is why Christian based societies place their right hand on the bible when making official statements. Anyone who made false statements were to face retribution in their net life - that was one of the functions of the bible.

Yes, there were people who were more scientifically inclined than the "masses." You know that in the middle ages, there were "witchhunts" and those accused of practicing the Dark Arts were burnt at the stake, that was how societies' mainstream was. The doctors, astrologers, etc had to be careful to whom they spoke, and what they said. They had to avoid public disagreement with the clergy.

The bible was compiled sometime in the 3rd or 4th century from works of different people since Christ's cruxifiction, I used the 12th and 13th century because that was when Christianity was well entrenched in (European) society.

Cheers!

Hmm...you do not reject evolution or the Bible....? Ah, I think you meant to say you ACCEPT both evolution and the Bible, as in accepting evolution as true and accepting the Bible as mere fictional story for gullible people like me and many others around the world for the past 2000 years, right?

To my mind the amount of misinformation you have about the Bible is really huge! The Bible was not written in the 12th or 13th century. And people in the past or not that daft to can't tell the difference between sickness by natural causes and sickness by supernatural causes. They had doctors then, and Luke was a doctor. It is chronological snobbery to think that we are clever but people in the past are dumwits who can't discern true causes, and most if not all, atheists are guilty of that. Don't forget, what you now know will one day also be knowledge of the past.

 

[Frodo]

One can simulate all the conditions in the lab except - time. I don't think we're able to compress millions of years into a few hours in the lab yet. If you can do that, you just might be able to create life.

Perhaps you might care to answer - why should it evolve further? Has its environment changed? Has its nutrient source become scarce?

Let's take a look at it from Creationist's angle. How did God make these things? By his word? That's really simple isn't it? Let there be light! And there was light. Let there be life! And there was life. Nobody taught him. He is the Alpha, the Omega. No need to ask how, why. You may be able to accept this, but many others will not be satisfied with this.

Cheers!

Since you can't test and repeat the origin of life, you have to admit that this is a matter of BELIEF in the evolution story. You need to be clear on what pass as science and what does not pass as science. You don't seem to be able to make the proper distinction. And if time is really the issue and can't be simulated, then why do evolutionists keep trying to create life in the lab?

As a creationist I do not believe in evolution, so I do not have to explain for you. But you have to explain why evolution stopped for mosquitoes which can be found in almost every part of the world. You can't be telling me that wherever the mozzies are the environment never changed! We are not talking about some isolated niche location here.

Yes, God created by His Word. Simple? Of course, we are talking about God, omnipotent! Just because something is simple means it is simply false? What kind of logic are you employing? But then again, you are simply employing naturalism here. To you, even if the whole thing is absurd, it has to be true because you cannot allow God to be anywhere in the answer. Thus far I have been able to fault your logic, but you have failed to fault mine.

 

[Frodo]

You are right in this. The bible had other purposes too. It is the official text for Christianity, which was used by politicians to rule over their societies. The church mandated the kings, who were given the right by divine authority to collect taxes. So the bible was taken as truth, and that is why Christian based societies place their right hand on the bible when making official statements. Anyone who made false statements were to face retribution in their net life - that was one of the functions of the bible.

Yes, there were people who were more scientifically inclined than the "masses." You know that in the middle ages, there were "witchhunts" and those accused of practicing the Dark Arts were burnt at the stake, that was how societies' mainstream was. The doctors, astrologers, etc had to be careful to whom they spoke, and what they said. They had to avoid public disagreement with the clergy.

The bible was compiled sometime in the 3rd or 4th century from works of different people since Christ's cruxifiction, I used the 12th and 13th century because that was when Christianity was well entrenched in (European) society.

Cheers!

You are making an irrelevant point. How the Bible is being used, whether people abuse it, or how they use it in the courts, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the Biblical record. You can say some people use the Bible to oppress others, but I can show you more people who don't do that. So does this negate your point then? You should not bring up irrelevant issues to derail the main issue. The question boils down to, "Does God exist, and is the Bible the Word of God?"

 

[Agoraphobic]

If we are unable to do something, it means either it is impossible, or we still haven't figured out how to do it. So, we just keep trying. Before the Wright Brothers proved that humans could fly, did it mean that we can't fly? Or we just haven't figured out how to? So, people jst kept trying. We are unable to produce life right now, so do we just give up? You have read that some scientist have produced beef in a test tube about two or three years ago; were we able to do that before? So, people have figured it out. Whether we will be able to create something living from non-living elements, we do not know, but somewhere out there, there are scientist that will keep trying.

Mozzies did not evolve further than the stage they've reached 50 million years ago because there is no push factor for that species to do so. At the moment (and for the last 50 million years), they have no difficulty in obtaining nutrients, difficulty in reproducing, and perhaps the only threat they've faced were from insecticides, and that's only been for the last 50 years or thereabouts.

God being omnipotent and therefore able to create everything may be acceptable as an explanation to you. But others will not accept his magic to work for them. People will still find ways to cure diseases, increase food production, find ways to travel to places we are unable to go by walking. That is what we see our species as trying to achieve.

Cheers!

Since you can't test and repeat the origin of life, you have to admit that this is a matter of BELIEF in the evolution story. You need to be clear on what pass as science and what does not pass as science. You don't seem to be able to make the proper distinction. And if time is really the issue and can't be simulated, then why do evolutionists keep trying to create life in the lab?

As a creationist I do not believe in evolution, so I do not have to explain for you. But you have to explain why evolution stopped for mosquitoes which can be found in almost every part of the world. You can't be telling me that wherever the mozzies are the environment never changed! We are not talking about some isolated niche location here.

Yes, God created by His Word. Simple? Of course, we are talking about God, omnipotent! Just because something is simple means it is simply false? What kind of logic are you employing? But then again, you are simply employing naturalism here. To you, even if the whole thing is absurd, it has to be true because you cannot allow God to be anywhere in the answer. Thus far I have been able to fault your logic, but you have failed to fault mine.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fine. People are people, and some will abuse the things available to them for their own benefit, at the expense of others. I will not fault the Bible or Christianity on this. All I am saying is that many stories in the Bible are untrue, or unbelievable and could not have happened as described. Some of these are - The Creation of the Universe, Noah's Ark and the Flood, Jonah, many parts of the Exodus, the story of Jesus. Debating over them can go on unending, and I do not particulary enjoy persuading people not to have "faith," it is their choice to believe, and if they find comfort and peace in them, so be it. But it is not possible for me to believe in magic.

Cheers!

You are making an irrelevant point. How the Bible is being used, whether people abuse it, or how they use it in the courts, is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the Biblical record. You can say some people use the Bible to oppress others, but I can show you more people who don't do that. So does this negate your point then? You should not bring up irrelevant issues to derail the main issue. The question boils down to, "Does God exist, and is the Bible the Word of God?"

 

[drifteri]

Failed DIVA is infected by Stinkie liao...mental problem showing....and making fun of his own atheist beliefs! LOL!!!

I am making fun at strawman christian idiot who believes life can be created from DUST at the wave of a hand. The bible is bullshit and only fixed for delusional nuts.

Now you deny you don't believe life can come from dust? Twist & turn like a serpent.

 

[Frodo]

If we are unable to do something, it means either it is impossible, or we still haven't figured out how to do it. So, we just keep trying. Before the Wright Brothers proved that humans could fly, did it mean that we can't fly? Or we just haven't figured out how to? So, people jst kept trying. We are unable to produce life right now, so do we just give up? You have read that some scientist have produced beef in a test tube about two or three years ago; were we able to do that before? So, people have figured it out. Whether we will be able to create something living from non-living elements, we do not know, but somewhere out there, there are scientist that will keep trying.

Mozzies did not evolve further than the stage they've reached 50 million years ago because there is no push factor for that species to do so. At the moment (and for the last 50 million years), they have no difficulty in obtaining nutrients, difficulty in reproducing, and perhaps the only threat they've faced were from insecticides, and that's only been for the last 50 years or thereabouts.

God being omnipotent and therefore able to create everything may be acceptable as an explanation to you. But others will not accept his magic to work for them. People will still find ways to cure diseases, increase food production, find ways to travel to places we are unable to go by walking. That is what we see our species as trying to achieve.

Cheers!

LOL! You seem unable to know when something is truly impossible or not, yet can be very absolutely sure that the events in the Bible are impossible! You probably don't even realise your own bias at work. Louis Pasteur has already proven that abiogenesis is impossible. Evolutionists who keep trying to prove that it did happen to prop up their belief in evolution is just wasting time and taxpayers' money.

BTW, humans still cannot fly! LOL! And the reason why humans can now take to the skies is because we are able to understand the laws of nature and intelligently design the machines to allow a chunk of metal (which cannot fly by itself) to overcome the law of gravity through understanding the law of aerodynamics. Evolution cannot even explain where these laws come from and why they should hold in a random universe.

You said mozzies have no push factor to change. I said mozzies CANNOT change because they have always been mozzies. You are unable to show me a mozzie ancestry. But I am able to show you that so-called 53 million years old mozzie trapped in amber is not any different from a modern day mozzie. But as an evolutionist you would NEVER question the millions of years because that is your sacred dogma. Even if challenge after challenge is presented to you that seriously undermine evolution you would still believe in it. Because you refuse to accept the alternative. It is therefore not science, logic, or reason that is supporting your beliefs, but a naturalistic worldview that you hold dearly to.

 

[Frodo]

Fine. People are people, and some will abuse the things available to them for their own benefit, at the expense of others. I will not fault the Bible or Christianity on this. All I am saying is that many stories in the Bible are untrue, or unbelievable and could not have happened as described. Some of these are - The Creation of the Universe, Noah's Ark and the Flood, Jonah, many parts of the Exodus, the story of Jesus. Debating over them can go on unending, and I do not particulary enjoy persuading people not to have "faith," it is their choice to believe, and if they find comfort and peace in them, so be it. But it is not possible for me to believe in magic.

Cheers!

What is your critera to say the Bible events are untrue or cannot have happened? Personal incredulity? Or just a naturalistic bias at work that simply screen out anything having to do with God at work? Who's asking you to believe in magic when it is miracles that we are talking about? You are clearly critical of the Bible's narratives yet again display complete gullibility in accepting anything the evolutionists say. Again, that's bias at work. Of course you are entitled to your biases, but at least you should be upfront to admit them.

 

[Frodo]

I am making fun at strawman christian idiot who believes life can be created from DUST at the wave of a hand. The bible is bullshit and only fixed for delusional nuts.

Now you deny you don't believe life can come from dust? Twist & turn like a serpent.

Wave of whose hand? LOL!

DIVA who is full of shit says Bible is bullshit? LOL! You have no credibility because your arguments have been shown to be completely of the FAILED category.

BTW, I do not believe that life can come from dust by the wave of hand. You should stop embarassing yourself by knocking down strawman beliefs. What I believe is that God fashioned Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into Adam who then became a living being.

 

[Agoraphobic]

What bias? I don't believe that the universe can be made in six days. And I am biased? I don't believe that Moses split the Red Sea (whether with God's help or not), and that is biased? I don't believe in the virgin birth, and that is biased? I think most people call that common sense. So, to believe in "miracles," one should not be logical?

Humans, as we are, cannot fly, We are denser than air. But we have developed aeronautical science, understand the physics of lift, and now have attained the ability of flight. Eh, come on lah, you are just picking on word usage to find fault.

I am unable to show you mozzie evolution because I am not a specialist in the study of insects, or evolution for that matter, but I can say that when the Earth took its form billions of years ago, at first there were no mozzies, or any other complex animals, and they only started to appear in their simpler forms at first, and later began to develop into more complex organism. So, to you, God made the mozzie. For what?

Cheers!

LOL! You seem unable to know when something is truly impossible or not, yet can be very absolutely sure that the events in the Bible are impossible! You probably don't even realise your own bias at work. Louis Pasteur has already proven that abiogenesis is impossible. Evolutionists who keep trying to prove that it did happen to prop up their belief in evolution is just wasting time and taxpayers' money.

BTW, humans still cannot fly! LOL! And the reason why humans can now take to the skies is because we are able to understand the laws of nature and intelligently design the machines to allow a chunk of metal (which cannot fly by itself) to overcome the law of gravity through understanding the law of aerodynamics. Evolution cannot even explain where these laws come from and why they should hold in a random universe.

You said mozzies have no push factor to change. I said mozzies CANNOT change because they have always been mozzies. You are unable to show me a mozzie ancestry. But I am able to show you that so-called 53 million years old mozzie trapped in amber is not any different from a modern day mozzie. But as an evolutionist you would NEVER question the millions of years because that is your sacred dogma. Even if challenge after challenge is presented to you that seriously undermine evolution you would still believe in it. Because you refuse to accept the alternative. It is therefore not science, logic, or reason that is supporting your beliefs, but a naturalistic worldview that you hold dearly to.